topic Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP in EF & RF Lenses

24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

sarahr_7 — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 23:27:38 GMT

Hi!

So I need some on advice between the 24mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.4. I have a Canon 70d (1.6 crop) and a 50mm 1.8. I love my nifty fifty, however, I always find myself stepping back. I'd like to get a wider lens that still has portrait capabilities (and maybe be used as a walk around as well). I know the 35mm is THE wide angle portrait for full frame but what about for crop? Will it be too long to even be considered wide? Any help would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks!

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

ScottyP — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 23:54:38 GMT

35mm on a crop is like 56mm on full frame. 24mm is like 38mm. A 56mm focal length is not at all wide.

This answer probably does nothing for you if you are not used to shooting with a full frame.

I would probably go with a 24mm lens rather than a 35mm if I were you, if only because you already have a 50mm lens and the two are fairly close.

That said, the image quality of the particular two lenses matters. I am not familiar with either but check out side by side image quality comparison on The Digital Picture website.

I just did, and wide open at f/1.4 the 35mm looks much sharper and has less purple fringing. That image quality answer may invalidate my focal length based suggestion above, though the 24 improves when you stop down.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

RobertTheFat — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 23:58:47 GMT

@ScottyP wrote:
35mm on a crop is like 56mm on full frame. 24mm is like 38mm. A 56mm focal length is not at all wide.

This answer probably does nothing for you if you are not used to shooting with a full frame.

I would probably go with a 24mm lens rather than a 35mm if I were you, if only because you already have a 50mm lens and the two are fairly close.

That said, the image quality of the particular two lenses matters. I am not familiar with either but check out side by side image quality comparison on The Digital Picture website.

I just did, and the 35mm looks much much sharper and has less purple fringing. That image quality answer may invalidate my focal length based suggestion above.

What she really needs, if she can afford it, is the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom. There's also an 18-135 that's not bad, isn't there?

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

ScottyP — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:24:55 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@ScottyP wrote:
35mm on a crop is like 56mm on full frame. 24mm is like 38mm. A 56mm focal length is not at all wide.

This answer probably does nothing for you if you are not used to shooting with a full frame.

I would probably go with a 24mm lens rather than a 35mm if I were you, if only because you already have a 50mm lens and the two are fairly close.

That said, the image quality of the particular two lenses matters. I am not familiar with either but check out side by side image quality comparison on The Digital Picture website.

I just did, and the 35mm looks much much sharper and has less purple fringing. That image quality answer may invalidate my focal length based suggestion above.

What she really needs, if she can afford it, is the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom. There's also an 18-135 that's not bad, isn't there?

That is a very good answer. I agree. Also cheaper than the L primes in those lengths and apertures.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

sarahr_7 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:57:27 GMT

17-55 sounds great as a walkaround but I don't know how it would do as a portrait, probably not very well?

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

ScottyP — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:06:21 GMT

I have one I bought when I had a crop body. I thought it did very well at portraits. If it is background blur/shallow DOF you are judging on (?) it will give a very nice blur at f/2.8 if the background is not super close and if you are fairly close to the subject.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

RobertTheFat — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:57:58 GMT

@sarahr_7 wrote:
17-55 sounds great as a walkaround but I don't know how it would do as a portrait, probably not very well?

I guess my own preference is to go a little bit longer, but remember: a 55mm lens on a crop-frame camera is about like an 85mm lens on a FF, and many consider that to be an ideal portrait length.

The purpose of using a mild telephoto as a portrait lens is to be able to fill the frame without exaggerating the length of the subject's nose. But you don't want the face to look squashed either.

The 17-55 is a nice sharp lens - much better than a low-end kit lens. My wife and I each have one (mine on a 7D, hers on a T2i and now a 7D2), and we've been well satisfied.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

ScottyP — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 10:37:14 GMT

I think maybe Bob meant to type that 55mm on a crop (not 65mm) X 1.6 is almost the same as 85mm on full frame and that 85mm on ff marks the wide end of the classical 85-135mm portrait range. Or maybe Bob meant to type 65mm and just prefers 65mm, and he certainly has enough knowledge and experience to know what he likes best.

And 55mm on a crop is a lot more like classic portrait length than either 24mm or 35mm is.

If you want a bright lens in the 24 to 35mm range like you said because you feel longer lenses are too long, the 17-55 covers it all at a bright f/2.8. That might be wide for portraits but then again better for body shots.

If on the other hand you do want a lens in the "classic" portrait range of 85mm to 135mm, that field of view is basically translated in 50mm to 85mm lenses if you are using a crop camera.

Guidelines and and rules of thumb are just that. If your vision says to think outside the box and you can pull it off then you may be getting creative and unusual shots that stand out from the herd shooting from 85-135.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

ebiggs1 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 11:13:30 GMT

B from B,

"...but remember: a 55mm lens on a crop-frame camera is about like an 65mm lens on a FF, ..."

Sarah,

An also remember it will be even closer to a 88mm lens on a FF camera.

Besides that he is right the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is by far the better choice for you. Remember it has all the focal lengths you are considering.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

RobertTheFat — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:57:01 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
B from B,
"...but remember: a 55mm lens on a crop-frame camera is about like an 65mm lens on a FF, ..."

Sarah,
An also remember it will be even closer to a 88mm lens on a FF camera.

Besides that he is right the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is by far the better choice for you. Remember it has all the focal lengths you are considering.

Yeah, I meant to say 85, not 65. (Specifically 88 on a Canon, but Canon's version of the crop factor is slightly larger than the APS-C standard.) It's what I get for posting in the small hours of the morning after staying up to watch the Cubs end their curse.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

ebiggs1 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:04:51 GMT

B from B,

Well you know my aversion to the whole crop factor thing in the first place. It is a meaningless somewhat ridiculous concept. Who cares what a lens would look like on another format. Some people have never used most of them!

Much like the people that recommend gear they themselves have never used. Just because they can read a review on the ole inner net.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

Waddizzle — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:47:09 GMT

@sarahr_7 wrote:
Hi!
So I need some on advice between the 24mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.4. I have a Canon 70d (1.6 crop) and a 50mm 1.8. I love my nifty fifty, however, I always find myself stepping back. I'd like to get a wider lens that still has portrait capabilities (and maybe be used as a walk around as well). I know the 35mm is THE wide angle portrait for full frame but what about for crop? Will it be too long to even be considered wide? Any help would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks!

Sounds to me like you're looking for the one lens that does it all: both wide angle shots and bust-style portraits. Not unless you use a zoom with an unusually wide range [ something like 10-100mm for APS-C mount [, you're going to be out of luck.

Such a lens doesn't exist. You're asking for two lenses in one. You want a wide angle walk around lens. And, you want an ideal portrait lens. And, you want them for an APS-C camera body. I'd suggest that you stop looking for one lens, to do the job of two lenses.

If you want a wide zoom, then I would suggest the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, which is equivalent to a 16-35mm on a full frame. As for as portrait zoom goes, I think your 50mm is enough to "get by" for indoor shots, and that one of Canon's "L" series 70-200mm lenses would be good for outdoor shots.

The previously mentioned EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a good walk around lens, too. It comes pretty close to being your multi-purpose, "all-in-one" lens that you have envisioned.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

sarahr_7 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 20:40:40 GMT

If a 17-55 will work for both a walkaround and portrait then I might start looking into that instead!

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

sarahr_7 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 20:42:14 GMT

Oops I might have accidentally clicked accept as soloution, but thank y'all for the help so far! I'll start looking into a 17-55 for my canon.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

ebiggs1 — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 21:19:54 GMT

sarah,

Keep in mind the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens has all the focal lengths you asked about. It is a WA, it is a normal and it is a portrait. All in one and is a pretty darn good all purpose walk-around lens. It is reasonably fast at f2.8 and best of all it is a constant f2.8. Not a variable. No other lens you can buy or even think of meets all this any better.

Re: 24mm 1.4 vs. 35mm 1.4 CROP

cicopo — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 23:38:55 GMT

I have both of the lenses you're asking about because they are f 1.4 not because they might be good lenses for portraits. I have to agree with the recommendation of the zoom for now because it will be far more versatile PLUS prove exactly what range you actually settle on as the "right" length for your style of photo.